If you're a financial freak try online forex, forex online has never been easier; experience forex trading at the leading forex broker offering forex managed accounts offering you the opportunity to trade forex online with state of the art real trading conditions.

Webmaster or site owner? Join the leading forex affiliate program and start earning from your advertising space.

Progressivism has become a parody of itself

The Washington state Health Department will be changing marriage and divorce certificates in response to the same-sex marriage law that takes effect Dec. 6.

Words such as “bride,” ”groom,” ”husband” and “wife” will likely be gone. The department wants to use gender-neutral terms.

Spokesman Tim Church told KIRO-FM […] they could be replaced with something like “Spouse A” and “Spouse B.”

The forms will still include gender so the state can track the number of same-sex couples in the state.

It’s really not too difficult to predict that the next step is to push for a Spouse C, a Spouse D, and onward, then to create available categories for what comes to count as a “spouse” in the first instance. And this idea about including gender? Well, the LGBT lobby will get rid of that particular hate crime soon enough. For freedom!

Now, the libertarian in me doesn’t necessarily take issue with consensual relationships (with certain exceptions that create conditions for significant health risk, like inbreeding) as agreed upon contractually; but the constitutional conservative / classical liberal in me also takes note that there’s been an historical aversion to tinkering with the definition of marriage as sanctioned by governments in successful civil societies — and I would argue that that is not an accident: it may not be causal, but it certainly seem corollary. The biological and social truth is, children benefit most from a one-man, one-woman family structure. And while there are always exceptions to every rule, the rules nevertheless become the rules because of their history of success.

The civil society has a right and perhaps even an obligation to promote its own healthy continuation. And government, from the classical liberal perspective, is permitted to play a (limited) role in creating the parameters for such self-perpetuation. This is what separates the classical liberal from the pure libertarian — the idea that government does have some legitimate interest in protecting the social contract, not just in protecting individual rights and providing for defense.

That having been said, I also believe in federalism. And if the people of Washington state want same-sex marriage and Spouse A / Spouse B relationships, more power to ’em. Just don’t insist that those of us who, as voters in other states, think the idea a bad one, be forced to recognize what Washington state or New York, etc., decided to enact.

The tension comes when the courts, as is their wont, step in and demand we all accept what only some, in a federalist system, are attempting — usually under the rubric of a “civil right” that is no such thing. People have a “right” to enter into contracts; they have a “right” to choose a partner. But they don’t have an inherent right to marry (ahem) their own definition of what comes to constitute a state sanctioned union to a thing that has always had a clear and stable definition.

So the next iteration will be polygamy, and all of those open-minded progressives who have fought long and hard to overcome the traditional, heteronormative religious types will be responsible for making Islamic marriage practices viable in the US. Yay, you!

The wife and I were talking the other day about how the new generation see themselves as almost a new creation, totally separate and above all that came before. The arrogant little apes denounce everything that came before them as irrelevant, outdated, and ridicules. They look at the fabulous riches around them, and reject all that made it happen, taking all the credit for themselves and admiring their own wonderfulness for doing it.

This is what separates the classical liberal from the pure libertarian — the idea that government does have some legitimate interest in protecting the social contract, not just in protecting individual rights and providing for defense.

In your world:

Protecting the social contract does not include barring property owners and employers from discriminating solely on the basis of race.
Protecting the social contract may (does?) include barring two consenting adults from marrying each other.

It’s opposite world. Which again, I cheer. It’s like you’re going out of your way to quarantine yourself from anyone who might craft policy.

I’m sure there are more, but there’s more than enough here to see the pattern. If we don’t embrace slippy’s preferred social policies, we’re stupid, square, powerless, uneducated, lost souls. Lucky for us there are people like slippy (and his yellow electric hamster analogue) to show us the error of our ways, so that we can be hip and cosmopolitan and sophisticated and popular like they are.

There are negative contrapositives to recognize for embrace as well: never consider the history of socialism in the world; ignore the genocides carried out to achieve the desired results; forever claim it can’t happen here.

You’ve repeatedly proven you haven’t the first idea about my world, nor are you capable of learning. So forgive me if I don’t much care how you hope to re-frame my actual views into views that comport with the cartoons you keep in your head.

But here, let me help you: how can you prove that a property owner is discriminating solely on the basis of race if he doesn’t come out and admit it? And even if he does, why does that concern you? It’s his property. Why do you presume a collection of elected officials have a right to demand he use his property the way they insist he use it?

And nobody is barring two consenting adults from joining together in a monogamous relationship. So again, you intentionally misstate the position I’ve laid out: that the voters of the state decide (federalism), and that “marriage”, which is already a thing with a stable definition (and one that has served the civil society well), isn’t another different thing just because you have decided you wish to lump the two together. Unless, that is, you decide as a state to redefine marriage thus.

But not everyone wishes to open up the legal can of worms that will flow naturally as a result.

Instead of trying to spin what I’ve said, how about you answer the questions, or engage my actual positions? Answer: because you are an intellectual lightweight who thinks spinning my positions to make them sound nefarious or racist or homophobic or anti-science or anti-earth or what have you is the epitome of rhetorical prowess.

The former president was telling a group once about his tumultuous days as governor of California during the rebellious sixties and early 70s. He said he had a meeting with some of the organizers of the protests. They came into his office wearing t-shirts and jeans, and some were barefoot.

Their spokesman began, “Governor, it’s impossible for your generation to understand us…. You didn’t grow up in a world of instant electronic communications, of cybernetics, of men computing in seconds what once took months, even years, or jet travel, nuclear power, and journeys into space….”

When the young man finished, Reagan said, “You’re absolutely right. Our generation didn’t have those things when we were growing up. We invented them.”

He declared me not necessarily racist, but an accomplice to racism because I believe people have private property rights and freedom of association. In other words, the Constitution is the real racist, and by following it, I’m its henchman.

I’ve laid out: that the voters of the state decide (federalism), and that “marriage”, which is already a thing with a stable definition (and one that has served the civil society well), isn’t another different thing just because you have decided you wish to lump the two together. Unless, that is, you decide as a state to redefine marriage thus.

Shorter: Voters in a state can let gays marry, but I kind of wish they wouldn’t.

It’s really not too difficult to predict that the next step is to push for a Spouse C, a Spouse D, and onward, then to create available categories for what comes to count as a “spouse” in the first instance. And this idea about including gender? Well, the LGBT lobby will get rid of that particular hate crime soon enough. For freedom!

Shorter: Polygamy is coming!!! And in the future you’ll get in trouble if you call someone a “boy” or a “girl”.

Shorter: Voters in a state can let gays marry, but I kind of wish they wouldn’t.

Pretty much. Not because I don’t wish to see gays in happy monogamous relationships if that’s what they choose, but rather because I recognize the potential legal dangers in opening up “marriage” to new definitions.

People here can read, though, so there’s really no need for you to shorten anything for us. This isn’t a kindergarten class / leftist site.

Polygamy is coming!!! And in the future you’ll get in trouble if you call someone a “boy” or a “girl”.

You can already “get in trouble” for those things, given the right context.

And I assume your use of three exclamation points is an attempt to sneer at the notion that same-sex marriage opens the legal doorway, at least potentially, to polygamy and polyamory — and yet it is your very own progressive law professors pushing that argument. Like, for realsies!!!

Now. Why not answer my questions? How can you prove that a property owner is discriminating solely on the basis of race if he doesn’t come out and admit it? And even if he does, why does that concern you? It’s his property. Why do you presume a collection of elected officials have a right to demand he use his property the way they insist he use it?

Shorter: Voters in a state can let gays marry, but I kind of wish they wouldn’t.

Shorter: Polygamy is coming!!! And in the future you’ll get in trouble if you call someone a “boy” or a “girl”.

I’m more of a socon than Jeff, so here’s my shorter:

I’m in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, and I haven’t a doubt that social acceptance of gay “marriage” will result in polygamous marriages and the eventual loss of the meaning of what marriage is.

There’s an even chance I have that backwards, and it’s been the corruption of the meaning of marriage in the first place (ie. the public declaration of love between people fucking, that can be revoked anytime, for any reason) that brought about the popularity for the concept of gay “marriage”.

Uh, a lot of progressives are totally on board with polygamy, including Cass Sunstein (see “Nudge”), Chai Feldblum (see “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships”), the ACLU. If you DON’T think polygamy is coming you haven’t been paying attention.

You also must have missed all of the ‘gender is just a social construct’ talk that’s been going on for years. Maybe you’ve seen those stories about proud mommies writing books & blogs about their son’s preference for princess dresses and nail polish, or about not sharing their child’s actual sex to protect them from gender stereotypes? It’s no longer whether one is a boy or a girl, it’s which gender do they identify with regardless of their bodies.

Slippery really has no future in either sales or politics, both of which require a skill-set that he is lacking. Mainly, the ability to make oneself likeable. To present a clear point of view. The ability to explain why this point of view is superior to the ‘old’ point of view. To point out the features of his point of view and without ‘besmirching’ the POV of the other to explain how his POV will make life better. Which it won’t.

It’s like it was written just for you guys. Pretty funny that you try to hang that as a noose around the head of today’s Democratic Republican party, when it’s exactly what you want the Republican Democratic party to “return” to.

Opportunistic SPEED is still of the essence of socialist success. Urgency is all.

Well, that and a profound ignorance as a source of propulsion.

One of the great disservices of the Bowles-Simpson commission was that it fed the impression that tax reform could generate so much cash that it would permit a cut in tax rates.

Grant Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson credit for good intentions — they were desperate to find a way to get Republicans on their commission to acknowledge the need for new revenues. Nonetheless, their effort was more a political deal than wise policy. They sent us down the wrong path.

I would love to see what a psychiatrist would have to say about its serial trolling, under countless names, multiple bannings, serial dishonesty, and its determination to take a shit in somebody’s living room when they are uninvited and unwanted.

“I raised your pathetic guilt by association cannard earlier. Are you going to to call or fold?”

Ernst, you are metaphorically playing poker. Slippery Slope is not. Slippery Slope is metaphorically flicking boogers and overlaying doodles of horns and a hitler mustache on your image with his mental felt tip marker.

He’s the guy who makes fun of Jesus, Leave it to Beaver, Spider-Man and Eisenhower to get a rise out of us, and says that we should develop a sense of humor when we frown at him. Then we make fun of Kurt Cobain, suggest that his lyrics aren’t that great, and that his melodies are more akin to simple, punchy, air-headed, commercial pop than the grim, complex, obscure alternative sound he claimed to value. Then devil may care, cool, thick skinned, funny man Slippery pisses his shorts in fury and outrage because we dared not pay proper obeisance to his chosen scared cow.

Protecting class rights according to one’s notions of social justice is not protecting individual rights. After all discrimination against an individual is tolerated or even encouraged in the name of fairness. It is discriminating against a protected class that has become a matter of civil and criminal law. If you don’t belong to a protected class then you are eligible for no protections.

That is a lie, and you are a liar. Some components of the social contract may lie in conflict with individual property rights, but respecting and protecting property rights is a significant — probably the most significant — element of the social contract. Where one element comes into conflict with another, society may try to strike a balance; rarely should it impose a winner-take-all “solution” that obliterates an accepted part of the whole.

Any fair reading of Jeff’s work, or any work by classical liberals and/or libertarians regarding the social contract would make that important distinction. It’s enough to make one suspect that you’re not interested in a fair reading of anything we have to say…

Slippery is not interested in individual rights. And he thinks the social contact was written by Marx’s vision of progressive historiography and is immutable within the context of this “age”. The chosen will and must do the work of the people. The people are so deluded and distracted by the bosses that they are too stupid to recognize the great work is in their interest so they must be disregarded, confused, misled, intimidated, imprisoned, worked like slaves, or even killed so that their work can done by their betters in the name of history.

The wife and I were talking the other day about how the new generation see themselves as almost a new creation, totally separate and above all that came before. The arrogant little apes denounce everything that came before them as irrelevant, outdated, and ridicules. They look at the fabulous riches around them, and reject all that made it happen, taking all the credit for themselves and admiring their own wonderfulness for doing it.

THIS….My daughter just wrote an email to Jeff regarding this. Only 20, she sees it the same way and is disgusted by it. It’s not hopeless as long as some see the truth, but still I weep for the republic as long as the majority of our children are not being taught actual history.

– The collective, which people like slippy are drawn too from lack of self-sufficiency and in gemeral an alienation from society at large, works in a sort of fit and start fashion, right up to the point when theres no more of other peoples money left to support it.

– But until then he gets to protent he is not worthless. So theres that.

Slippery is not interested in individual rights. And he thinks the social contact was written by Marx’s vision of progressive historiography and is immutable within the context of this “age”. The chosen will and must do the work of the people. The people are so deluded and distracted by the bosses that they are too stupid to recognize the great work is in their interest so they must be disregarded, confused, misled, intimidated, imprisoned, worked like slaves, or even killed so that their work can done by their betters in the name of history.

Maybe the new marriage certs can read Defaults to Top and Defaults to Bottom and have room at the bottom of the certificate for new registered sub-let quasi-marriage stations like ‘trusted fuck buddy’ or ‘one a month strange’.

– Mommy and daddy never taught you about the ‘camel ‘s nose in the tent’ parable, and as a direct result you have no understanding of the phrase “creeping incrimentalism”, nor the attendent dangers thereof.

– Every tyranny in history has started with the intrusion of government into your civil rights at some microscopic level. Its success follows from the fact that there are always people like yourself that lack introspective and self-awareness.

” I always thought of tyranny as more cruel and oppressive than that.”

Stupid, gullible people almost always do! That is how the cruel tyranny usually comes into power. The stupid people happily give out dictatorial power either in a lump or incrementally to an individual, or a bureaucracy precisely because they want someone to fix the bad patches and make the trains run on time. They want experts to control outcomes and create a structured caste system that supposedly improves everyone’s life. A utopia is held up before them like a carrot. But utopias are bullshit. The dictatorial power is used for other things (like cronyism, getting enemies, beak wetting, pragmatic experiments in redefining the meaning of property into commonly owned resources to be regulated and distributed by the government, police states, conduct codes that criminalize everyone and thus allow for control via subjective enforcement, class or ethnic “cleansing”, etc. ).

‘Foot in the door’ and ‘slippery slope’ are rhetoric designed to describe the same phenomenon in different emotional terms. ‘Slippery slope’ is the stigmatized form that described as a logical fallacy based in paranoia or excessive irrational pessimism. When you want to quiet a controversy about your policy you portray your opponent as falling for the ‘slippery slope’ fallacy. ‘Moving one inch down hill does not guarantee that you will move all the way down hill. What infantile balderdash! ‘

But, when you want to stir up hysteria against your opponents policy you say ‘this is about getting a foot in the door’ and start talking about ‘boiling frogs slowly’.

They say that they want to cut spending now but the truth is they hate ALL government spending! They want a world without fire stations and emergency rooms! They want a world without taxes of any kind! This spending cut they propose is just a foot in the door! ‘

This isn’t a hypothetical question, as it is currently illegal to discriminate on the basis of race in many circumstances. In short, you must provide evidence that convinces a judge or jury

Your link is a dodge. It tells me nothing. What kind of evidence? Recall, I set the theoretical thus: all other things being equal (on the resumes), the employer has an all white workforce. Does that “prove” racial discrimination?

Similarly, presuming to take someone else’s private property for a thought crime is not part of the social contract. It’s theft of the unpopular by a rapacious form or populism disguised as moral rectitude.

Further, if you don’t reject the 9th and 10th amendment, why the snark about states getting to decide, but my personal preference being otherwise. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?

It always comes masked in altruism and false justice. In sum, you’re quite supportive of exercising dominion and control over things that belong to others, such that their right to the property and those benefits flowing therefrom are directed to ends other than that which its owners freely choose. You strike at the idea of ownership itself, not discrimination.

– Which of course is the linguistic trick in the first place, recasting the argument from the reverse to give yourselfa false gravitas.

– Limiting taxation is not about ‘a foot in the door’ for the wage earner. Its about shoving the fucking camel back out the door where he belomgs.

– The former strawman leaps from the samre tortured logic as the ‘against limited government’ meme arises.

– The real probkem of course, is once established government NEVER voluntarily gives up power. And so the slippys of the world set all their fellow citizens up to suffer from their own limited and short sighted ideas.

– Sliipy will be confused, not dismayed, that requires introspect he lacks, when the first edict comes down concerning social contracts that limits such things in the Chinese way, no more than two children per couple, along with a strict list of ‘who’ can qualify for such unions.

– He will have to recalibrate his narrative continuously to keep up the happy face.

“If telling an apartment owner that they can’t discriminate solely on the basis of race is tyranny, then I’m all for tyranny”

If telling a government official he can’t force a devout Catholic to pay for someone else’s abortion is tyranny, are you still all for tyranny?

Yes, I know, trick question. Only the first instance is actual tyranny, particularly in a country where the government allows itself to discriminate solely on the basis of race, then presumes to control your property so that you cannot, for whatever your reasons: for instance, you can be a black property owner who is more comfortable around whites, and wish to rent an open room in your home only to whites. And the obverse is true, as well. These would still be instances of discrimination based solely on race, would they not?

Stupid, gullible people almost always do! That is how the cruel tyranny usually comes into power. The stupid people happily give out dictatorial power either in a lump or incrementally to an individual, or a bureaucracy precisely because they want someone to fix the bad patches and make the trains run on time.

It’s also the way that tyranny doesn’t come into power. Name one government on the planet that doesn’t infringe on the individual to a degree greater than you would prefer. Is every government today a tyranny? Is every government headed there?

In sum, you’re quite supportive of exercising dominion and control over things that belong to others, such that their right to the property and those benefits flowing therefrom are directed to ends other than that which its owners freely choose. You strike at the idea of ownership itself, not discrimination.

Precisely. And all because he gets to preen around as if he’s more supportive of minorities than are we racists who insist on our private property rights — the very thing that keeps us free.

Anybody read the American Spectator piece? The plan is to go after 401Ks and create a national retirement program, because only the “rich” have 401ks. Also, the plan is to create an escalator — a wealth subsidy — to close the “income gap.”

I say why bother with all the finessing and nudging. Just print off everyone a trillion dollar bill and mail it to them in exchange for being able to take all their current wealth, whatever it is. Then we’re all rich, and it’s all “fair,” and we can start again afresh!

It’s also the way that tyranny doesn’t come into power. Name one government on the planet that doesn’t infringe on the individual to a degree greater than you would prefer. Is every government today a tyranny? Is every government headed there?

Well you see, we used to have this thing called the Constitution conceived specifically to avoid this very thing. So long as we kept it, we were safe. But as Ben Franklin reminded us through a proxy, it would only last so long as people like you don’t become so debased that you want and need Despotism.

That’s what American exceptionalism is about. That’s what the American experiment is. Obama and the left either don’t understand that or else pretend not to. As a way to get out of the constraints put on tyrants by enumerated powers, a bill of rights, natural rights, primacy of individual and property rights, checks and balances, separation of powers, and the powers granted to the states.

It’s almost as if you believe American history began with you. Or maybe the New Deal, if I’m being generous.

Your link is a dodge. It tells me nothing. What kind of evidence? Recall, I set the theoretical thus: all other things being equal (on the resumes), the employer has an all white workforce. Does that “prove” racial discrimination?

It’s not a dodge because it’s not theoretical, it’s actual. There are cases where racial discrimination goes to court. Sometimes the plaintiff wins, sometimes the defendant does. In cases where the plaintiff has won, look up what evidence they presented. I’m not interested in being your law clerk.

Similarly, presuming to take someone else’s private property for a thought crime is not part of the social contract. It’s theft of the unpopular by a rapacious form or populism disguised as moral rectitude.

Sorry, what’s being taken. “I have an apartment for rent. It’s $1,000 per month. I can discriminate based on credit rating, rental history, or any but a handful of other things.” Where’s the theft?

Further, if you don’t reject the 9th and 10th amendment, why the snark about states getting to decide, but my personal preference being otherwise. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?

Jeff, you want to defend the “rights” of property owners to discriminate solely on the basis of race, and you (presumably) want to win elections so that you can effect such policy changes. How do you reconcile those? The former position inexorably leading to minorities overwhelmingly voting for the other team.

It’s not a dodge because it’s not theoretical, it’s actual. There are cases where racial discrimination goes to court. Sometimes the plaintiff wins, sometimes the defendant does. In cases where the plaintiff has won, look up what evidence they presented. I’m not interested in being your law clerk.

And I’m not interested in what a jury decided with respect to EO laws for businesses, save in the case I’ve noted and that you continue to ignore: all resumes being equal, and an all white work force, is this “proof” of racial discrimination. I imagine to some jury somewhere it is. And their opinion carries legal weight.

But we’re talking rights here. So answer the question: is such an employee pool proof of racial discrimination?

Sorry, what’s being taken. “I have an apartment for rent. It’s $1,000 per month. I can discriminate based on credit rating, rental history, or any but a handful of other things.” Where’s the theft?

The theft is of the “I have.” Because you don’t. Not in any real sense anymore.

Mainly because of the Polygamy!!! Polygamy!!!

I guess you missed to Turley, and the litany of other names Libby through out. And by “missed,” I of course mean “ignored, because they point to how woefully uneducated I am about the things I presume to sneer at.”

Jeff, you want to defend the “rights” of property owners to discriminate solely on the basis of race, and you (presumably) want to win elections so that you can effect such policy changes. How do you reconcile those? The former position inexorably leading to minorities overwhelmingly voting for the other team.

Firstly, because I don’t want to defend the “rights” of property owners to discriminate solely on the basis of race. I simply want to defend the rights of property owners to do with their property as they see fit, it being theirs.

It’s very similar to the idea that I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it. Only with property rights. See how that works? I defend a principle. I don’t try to micromanage every conceivable situation that may look to someone else to be untoward. Because I’m not a liberal fascist.

Also, I’ve pointed out that blacks renting only to whites or whites renting only to blacks because that’s who they are comfortable renting to is “discrimination based solely on race.” Should they be punished? For their personal preferences and comfort in property they own and is theirs?

Advocating for your being able to better know how to use and keep and enjoy the fruits of your labor than does some temporary politician who has to cobble together voting blocs through promises of special dispensation, is not leading minorities to vote for the other team.

The fact that they seem to be as confused about what liberty is as are you is what leads them to vote overwhelmingly for the other team. That, and free shit.

And because the GOP runs mushy us-too moderates, our message doesn’t get much play. Which is presumably why you have no idea what it actually is, beyond the cartoons that have been prepared for you, and that you’ve taken up as a kind of status marker.

You’re a useful idiot. And there are millions more like you. You just seem to enjoy it, is what’s so fascinating to me.

Also, though they may never make the push (openly) for pedophilia; wouldn’t infantophilia be perfectly acceptable … I mean, if you can “expose” a child until he’s two years old, what can’t you do to/with him?

Firstly, because I don’t want to defend the “rights” of property owners to discriminate solely on the basis of race. I simply want to defend the rights of property owners to do with their property as they see fit, it being theirs.

The latter includes the former, so you are, in fact, defending the right to discriminate on the basis of race and other things.

It’s very similar to the idea that I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it.

I defend one’s right to say it too. I just don’t defend one’s right to do it. It being, discriminate in housing or employment on the basis of race.

Also, I’ve pointed out that blacks renting only to whites or whites renting only to blacks because that’s who they are comfortable renting to is “discrimination based solely on race.” Should they be punished? For their personal preferences and comfort in property they own and is theirs?

Yeah, it’s not legal.

You’re a useful idiot. And there are millions more like you. You just seem to enjoy it, is what’s so fascinating to me.

And you’re quarantining yourself safely away from policy makers via your barrier of untenable positions. It’s not fascinating to me, it’s a relief and a cause for celebration.

“The latter includes the former, so you are, in fact, defending the right to discriminate on the basis of race and other things.”

In determining the use of one’s own rental property either fairly or unfairly. We are all gloriously set free to do those things that do not offend you in other words. There is no property unless it is used as you would have it used. Thus, there is no property, only tax responsibility and liability and a chance for some profit IF the one held responsible acts as you wish him to.

It’s not fascinating to me, it’s a relief and a cause for celebration.

– Well, while you’re busy flouncing around with the celebratory butterflies, and superior Unicorns, you might want to consider that sooner or later what you’ll be celebrating is your own civil imprisonment.

– But hwy, no time for actual thinking, theres celebarting to be done!

– (Cautionary hint: Get rid of all mirrors. The last thing you need to burst your utopian bubble is to notice the ears and tail beggining to grow.)

The latter includes the former, so you are, in fact, defending the right to discriminate on the basis of race and other things.

Ah, I see. So when I defend free speech, I’m defending hate speech, it being included in the former. And hate speech being bad, I should probably stop defending free speech. It being “untenable.”

I defend one’s right to say it too. I just don’t defend one’s right to do it. It being, discriminate in housing or employment on the basis of race.

No,it being the idea of private property, which it isn’t, if you have a say in how it’s used, and your say trumps that of the private property owner, who isn’t harming anyone by renting out a room in his own house.

But finally we’re getting somewhere: you are saying that if a white guy,eg., rents out a room in his house, and over the years, he’s rented only to black women, say (because he gets along well with black women for whatever reason, and this consensual arrangment makes him and them happy and comfortable), he should be punished. Because what he’s doing is not legal. Renting to whom he wishes to rent to.

Good. Then we’ve reached the crux of the matter, which is not at all surprising to anyone here: you don’t believe in private property rights. And you conflate preference with actionable discrimination. Why? Because you presume you can see into people’s hearts, and you are more moral than are they, so you should be able to tell them what to do.

You are granting yourself a moral authority that isn’t yours to grant.

My positions are Constitutional. It speaks to the sadness of the age when a fascist dolt looks at the Constitution as untenable and cares only about his “side” winning elections, immune to the very real fact that his side is using those wins to further enslave all of us, including the fascist dolt.

But maybe you’re typing all this in a gimp suit, what do I know? At least then it would make sense.

Freedom of speech means freedom to say bad shit. Property means you can use something in a way that others don’t approve of and consider bad for society.

Keep in mind Slippery that good intentions routinely lead to bad law. You can be against discrimination without being for laws against it. There are ways to deal with evil things in society without empowering the gendarmes to run more of our lives. But, you can’t be for property rights when you favor laws that destroy or erode property rights in the name of ending discrimination or anything else that can be sold a a good social goal.

How many more rounds of truthiness learning by the Left will society be forced to endure?

They won’t learn. They deny the truth in front of them. They deny the tens of millions who have died on the alter of socialism, and they will continue to do so even if the dead physically surround them.

We already have cities that tried to make it illegal to sell ‘conflict coffee’ and toys with children’s meals. 32 oz. soda? Fuck you. You have no right to let people drink that much soda. We want people to be healthy and not obese, so we take control. And when that doesn’t have the desired effect we take MORE control because the answer is always more money and power. It’s the Lucas solution to a boring or disappointing scene. ‘Do the same thing only faster and more intense’ and digitally move this guy over there a little bit. But that’s not tyranny. Oh no! Don’t be silly!

I want the useful idiot to see what happens when the idiots are no longer of use.

– If you want to see that in real time just hold your nose and make a quick visit to the crystal echo chambers of HuffPoop.

– Drop a comment in any of the Obama love fest articles as follows:

“So now that we know from his record that dear Leader is a total war monger, what with Gitmo, the pursuit of both wars, and his ‘kill list’ using drones to murder 3000 innocent Islamists, women and children, and making Bush/Chaney look like Sunday school teachers by comparison, where are all the calls for him to be tried for war crimes. Where are all the protests, Code Pink, and Sister Sheehan. Why are all the Progressives remaining silent?”

– You’ll either be told to ‘because shiutup’, or you’ll get crickets.

– The Left simply can’t deal with Obama’s total betrayal of every promise he made to get elected.

Can’t seem to grab slip-slop’s attention. Must have been because of when I harpooned him as johntaylor.
Let’s try this – Black’s Law Dictionary defines marriage as the “[l]egal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Just like the definition of “apple” (according to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary – yes, it’s old, but definitions don’t change (oops, gave a clue)) is “the fleshy usu. rounded and red or yellow edible pome fruit of a tree (genus Malus) of the rose family.”
Civil society has been quite successful and satisfied using the former definition, and I suspect that if you defined the latter as an “orange”, you might get some push-back.
So, I suggested to Happyfeet some time ago that he could have the word “garriage” to define gay marriage. All of the same legal rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage. But not “marriage”, because it is already taken.
How do you like them apples?

Both are crimes according to you, even though there’s clearly no evidence of racial animus in the example I offered, just a preference. The white guy who rents to the black woman doesn’t, because of his preference for black women, necessarily dislike whites. He is not a self hater because of a preference about whom he wishes to have around his house, nor is he a racist. This is clear. And yet the same law is applied to him. He should be legally punished, according to you, and for what? Because he doesn’t comport with your idea that he has to switch up the color of people he likes to rent to, not because he’s a racist. That is, you want him punished for not being attuned to your vapid superficial symbolism.

Face it: You don’t believe in private property. You don’t believe a private citizen should be able to choose to whom he rents out his own space, even if that private citizen isn’t hurting anyone, is engaged in a mutually beneficial contract with another willing citizen, and isn’t a racist or some other cartoonish monster of the left’s imagining.

You worship at the altar of conspicuous moral vanity and top-down, one-size-fits-all big government dictates. You’re a fascist. It’s who you are. Just go with it.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’

As the devil is actually very attractive, so is tyranny. They want to “help”, and their agenda is to assume authority in order to do that.

We’re dying We died the death of one thousand cuts. Only it was a kazillion laws and regulations. From toys in happy meals to CAFE standards, eight pages of warnings for can opener to tax law no one can understand, prohibiting smoking in outdoor public spaces to making it impossible for a coal fired electric plant to conform to regulation, sin taxes on sodas to little girls being handcuffed for pretending a chicken finger could shoot, and on and on and on.

Both are crimes according to you, even though there’s clearly no evidence of racial animus in the example I offered, just a preference. The white guy who rents to the black woman doesn’t, because of his preference for black women, necessarily dislike whites. He is not a self hater because of a preference about whom he wishes to have around his house, nor is he a racist. This is clear. And yet the same law is applied to him. He should be legally punished, according to you, and for what? Because he doesn’t comport with your idea that he has to switch up the color of people he likes to rent to, not because he’s a racist. That is, you want him punished for not being attuned to your vapid superficial symbolism.

“I prefer to hire white people, well, just because I have found over the years that they’re better workers. I feel like they’re more honest and less likely to shuck and jive me and call in sick on a Monday. It’s not that I hate black people. I have a number of black friends, I’d just rather hire a white person. I’m just a lot more comfortable with it.”

Perfectly reasonable? Nope. You can think so, in fact, I hope you do, because it will ensure that your team can’t win office outside of red states. And with the demographics, Texas will be a swing state before long.

Face it: You don’t believe in private property. You don’t believe a private citizen should be able to choose to whom he rents out his own space, even if that private citizen isn’t hurting anyone, is engaged in a mutually beneficial contract with another willing citizen, and isn’t a racist or some other cartoonish monster of the left’s imagining.
You worship at the altar of conspicuous moral vanity and top-down, one-size-fits-all big government dictates. You’re a fascist. It’s who you are. Just go with it.

That’s a lot of big boy language, but you’re the one that would fight for the “right” to hire or pick renters solely on the basis of race.

There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved…. After all we have been through.

Perfectly reasonable? Nope. You can think so, in fact, I hope you do, because it will ensure that your team can’t win office outside of red states. And with the demographics, Texas will be a swing state before long.

– And there you have it. The Leftueds one and only true principle. Winning.

– Everything else is agitprop, time filling noise. Which you might as well ignore, because you can’t argue with a willful liar.

I believe slope is of the opinion preference is ok if you’re using any other metric besides race. Discrimination(defined as: exclusion from participation, in any conceivable circumstance, by consideration in any degree, race ) against one particular race is and should be a criminal offense. If you don’t agree completely, no one will like you and they won’t friend you on Facebook.

Asshole don’t give a shit I can’t get hired to wait tables at Hooters though, if I got it right.

Jeff doesn’t assume a right to the apartment or job you want. You do. You’re not endorsing protecting individual rights, you’re happily subsuming them to government power and your notion of social justice. Asshole.

It’s not fascinating to me, it’s a relief and a cause for celebration.

cranky-d wrote:
If that’s true, why are you here? Aren’t you in danger of convincing us, using your mighty rhetoric, to change our ways so that we might be a danger to the future power grabs by the Democrats?

Because he hates us and he thinks his “celebration” causes us pain. There’s also likely a motivation to beat down all us icky people who disagree with him by him gloating about how “isolated” we are and such. Oh and he seems to want to martyr himself by being enough of a jackass that he’s banned and then pretend it was “disagreement” or “suppressing dissent” that got him banned instead of being a jackass.

The Lunny family, which owns the oyster farm, was among a group of families that sold their ranch lands to the National Parks Service in the 1970s to protect them from developers, with the understanding they would get 40-year-leases renewed in perpetuity.

“happyfeet says November 29, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Not one R candidate pissed away a senate seat this year by proposing appalling and extremist job creation ideas Mr LaRoche
Weirdo religious nuts on the other hand went hog fucking wild.
It’s one of those compare and contrast things
”

It’s all the same to me. I’m not voting for or contributing to republicans again. They aren’t worth it. All they do is talk big, sell out, fuck up, preach against their own platform, and dagger each other in the back every time the humidity changes. They’re just crooked fucking fools who like brief shows of false affection when they turn on their own, and who have nothing to offer the voter but bravado, treachery, stupidity, spite, disappointment, and excuses.

Mr Jeff it’s a far more meaningful failure of Team R’s intrepid establishmentarianism that they support the continuance of stale feckless leadership like boehner and mcconnell than it is that they walk away from people spouting inane crap about rape I think

I’m sick of queers and their yapping about their lifestyles and how fabulous they are. I’ve known a lot of homosexuals in my lifetime and not a one of them was a happy person. They drink too much. They’ll screw a snake. They do a lot of drugs.

They’ve ruined the entertainment industry with their tawdry tales.

They’re a bunch of attention whores who need to STFU because no one cares about them.

Something I like about PW is knowing that there is a place for Burkean conservatives of random perspectives nowadays. These places keep going away. (Many places doesn’t see the natural connections between certain groups.)

We have different names for this whole deal but I don’t feel any need to take shots at my religious friends or pretend I’m more sophisticated.

leigh, just put on a pot of strong black coffee and I’m there. Give me a cool morning, a cup of joe and some manly type yard work and I’m there.

Bushes need to be dug out?

Sprinkler head needs to be dug out?

Garbage disposal needs to be replaced? (okay, the last is not outside work, but that was the chore this evening. By the way, if I ever meet the person who recommended using a car scissor jack to hold the new disposal in place while tightening, dinner is on me)

i agree with bh except for the part about not taking shots at religious lunatics what are hellbent on infusing team r politics with their theocratic crazy cat lady lila rose focus on the family 700 club freakery

That “Palin chick” is about to give her detractors a whole lot of butthurt in the coming year. Which reminds me, 64% of the candidates her PAC supported this year won their races. But haters gonna hate no matter what.

Queers are really expensive to maintain when they contract The Virus through their slutty behaviors. Their refusal to take responsibility for the fact that they are dirty whores and to adamantly demand that they be allowed to donate blood at the Red Cross (probably to finance their drug habits) contaminated the blood supply nationwide and lead to many senseless deaths of innocents who needed regular blood transfusions to keep them alive. Hemophiliacs and the like, most of them children.

They were also squarely behind propogating the myth of heterosexual AIDS back before it spread like wildfire through intaveneous drug usage and the whorish behaviorof the general population who said ‘It’s just sex’ not knowing that they were getting a slow killer with that one night stand. Now we have a whole population that is HIV positive and on SSI—forever.

since i left i got drunk in allen texas and then in athens georgia and then i drank some on thanksgiving day with my meal and afterwards i went back to my room and had a few glasses of plum wine and sake cause of i was sad about my friend in rockaway what lost his whole house cause of superstorm sandy and that’s what we used to drink in chinatown every year

He likes lower taxes. He just wishes progressives did too so he wouldn’t have to slum it with the lowbrow Christers and the uppity suburban soccer mom politicos who should know their fucking place because Christ they probably think Velveeta is cheese and Flaubert’s Parrot a breakfast cereal mascot.

i’m on the doorstep… i got distracted by the Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park… it’s very different … it has a shuttlebus system and this sorta contrived but very elaborate recreation of a town from … like the 1700s or whatever… I think they’re going for a Jamestown feel but the park is so empty this time of year it’s hard to know if they succeed

but it has really fun hiking where you come across for real ruins of stuff from hundreds of years ago

plus the deer here are very hoppy and fun and i’m almost certain you don’t have to worry about bears at all

i saw more deer in shenandoah national park but they felt kinda tame like they were a lot used to people so they didn’t hop away like graceful white tailed bunnies

that wouldve been fun… time constraints mean i have to make choices… what i want to do is hershey then catskills if i can then chicago then indiana then iowa then minnesota then i’m not sure

i have to buy all new clothes cause i been leaving clothes behind as i go instead of doing laundry cause i need different clothes for new job anyway, so i’ll probably look for a tanger in a low sales tax state somewheres

Queers are really expensive to maintain when they contract The Virus through their slutty behaviors. Their refusal to take responsibility for the fact that they are dirty whores and to adamantly demand that they be allowed to donate blood at the Red Cross (probably to finance their drug habits) contaminated the blood supply nationwide and lead to many senseless deaths of innocents who needed regular blood transfusions to keep them alive.

Just as people spout inane crap denying AGW. Science is only what the left says it is and they get to pick and choose what data to rub, scrub and twist to fit their predetermined reality. This is their method, so too… Language is only what the left says it is and they get to pick and choose what definitions to rub, scrub, and twist to fit their predetermined reality.

Twilight is only slightly less lame on the screen than it is in print. It makes for painfully bad reading.

I’d rather sit through a marathon review of my wife’s past recordings of America’s Next Top Model than watch any of the Twilight movies, though. Come to think of it, there’s a certain similarity between the two that might be fun to explore, but I just can’t summon enough interest to do that.

Bitchy, depressed attention whores, when cornered, fight savagely. Or something like that. Not sure if there’s a wolf equivalent, there.

I can’t bring myself to watch that Revolution show either because you just know it’s brought to you by a sad little coterie of broadcast tv obamawhores what wouldn’t know revolution if it crawled out of chris christie’s ass with a fife and drum

I have some fundamental disagreements with Jeff about whether the government should enforce antidiscrimination laws, but I have to say I don’t have a really good set of thoughts on the subject. It’s crystal clear that the federal government cannot discriminate based on race, and it’s also clear that state governments can’t. What’s less clear is whether (stripped back to the bare text of the Constitution+Amendments) federal law has any clear leverage at the level of personal interaction (of the type Jeff has already outlined, perhaps). Take that a step further, Jeff: what if the individual in question is not just a guy who’s letting a room out of his personal residence, but is instead the owner of a small hotel?

That the Commerce Clause was hijacked to cover this particular kind of occurrence is perhaps an indication that the limitation of federal law ought to have been more clear, IMO. Maybe legalized duelling until all of that shit was sorted out could have accomplished some things.

That aside, I am beginning to think that (based on the last few weeks of helping my kid with her American History up through 1877) Sherman was entirely too gentle. If the South had been more thoroughly beaten and penitent, there may have been some opportunity to avoid the Reconstruction waffling about the limits of federal power. But Lincoln not getting assassinated may have had some of the same effects. Andrew Johnson’s presidency was an utter disaster that we’re still picking up after. The things he turned a blind eye to, and that were later rectified, permitted a great deal of festering where none should have been tolerated.

Revolution is ok in my book, although I think there’s rather more discipline in the badguy camp than would actually be the case. I think TV almost universally underplays how evil the Bad Guys can be. Even the Governor from The Walking Dead is only crazy on an intermittent basis.

The Revolution bad guys are mostly sadists who have magically seen the light of day and acquired military discipline; every last one of them. I think that’s kind of unlikely. Billy Burke would have been at least partially mangled by the third or fourth capture. And he would have earned it, in retribution for playing Bella’s dad on Twilight.

Ah, full circle.

About the only TV series that goes over the top with evil is American Horror Story, which I kind of like a lot. It’s always hard to see where that one is going.

Yes, and the reason it’s lost is there’s not much virtue left in this Republic’s citizenry. Virtue is difficult to learn outside a venue that teaches it, church or strong family, and those institutions are getting hammered. Instead of self-reliance and mutual respect, people learn selfishness and me-first and government will give us nice things if we empower it by voting for the empowering Party that proffers the most goods and services that aren’t earned, but someone will print money to pay for.

Yes, we are in the final stage of this Republic. Be sure to be in a Red State when the SHTF if you can. Things that are important to do will be done very locally I’m guessing.

Oh, and to the marriage thing: strong nations are made by intact families. Families are held together by the marriage bond, a centuries-old tradition that has meaning and structure, the most important facet being the production and raising of children. For gays to successfully ‘marry’, they’d need to be able to naturally procreate. So far, nishi hasn’t informed us that men can get preggers by the back door.

I don’t want to go back to la at all but I will go back is what I will do and make some monies and save as much as I can and since this is a brand new position I’m taking I’m hopeful it might be something I can shape to where I could someday do it from outside failifornia

Heh. LA will be a death zone. Not much surviving there if/when there’s a major setback and civilization’s thin veneer crumbles. Perhaps the Mexican army can get there in time stop the worst of it…wait. They will be there for consolidation by color of skin, not for salvation by content of character… )

“happyfeet says November 29, 2012 at 9:48 pm
maybe rove was trying to challenge himself
some races were heavier lifts than others you know”

The tricksy whore leftydoodles make you think the RINO-dumbs are all futuristic and special but then they pull the rug out from under them. the RINO-dumbs fall for it every time but nobody else does. They suck and no one wants them. All they do is attack the few GOPee drinkers that can still hold on to their seats and it gets the RINO-dumbs nothing but a lot of campaign money they get ad buy commissions on as they lose.

That’s right: you do reap what you sow. Even if you didn’t mean to. Which is why Republicans lost the black vote for most of all time: because Republicans failed to stand up on principal and compromised with Southern Democrats on the issue of federal intervention in the South.

It was one of the larger cockups in US history, in my opinion. And that’s saying a lot, because we are country that has stepped on its own figurative crank (which, if you were looking for a likely representation, would be Florida) a whole lot of times.

So, in other words: because the Yankee horde didn’t lean on the South even harder than it did, we are a many, many times more fucked than we would otherwise be.

Which, if you look at it, is just one more bit of evidence (if you needed to look for more) that happyfeets eternal blather machine should not be listened to. Because although he undoubtedly has good intentions, that’s pretty much all he has. And it’s not enough. It’s not nearly enough.

Yankee town got plenty fucked up by the 20’s. So did the mid west. The 30’s was crazy time. We thought WW2 and the fancy days that followed cured some of that but the late 90’s (the post historical period) onward showed that it was not so. Now, having wandered so far from the constitution, the cities rot, the people rot, and the maggots and vultures are crowned king in a land that was founded so there would be no kings.

Slart, most of our problems begin and end with welfare and social security. We let the pig in and it grew and grew and grew. Now we are trying to make more pigs just like it. I don’t know why. I guess we’ll die.

slippy is a fundamentally unserious pseudonymous entity. It does much talking and very little in the way of close listening. It argues, but isn’t interested enough in the other side to understand it, and instead argues with caricatured opponents of its own imagination.

What’s less clear is whether (stripped back to the bare text of the Constitution+Amendments) federal law has any clear leverage at the level of personal interaction

Do you think it should?

98% of black women voted for Obama. It seems highly likely some, if not most, did so in some part to racial discrimination. Is that immoral? Criminal? Unconstitutional? Should they be prosecuted under anti-discrimination law? How do you decide which voted for Obama because his daddy was black and which did so for other reasons?

Personally, I don’t think it’s my business, what they did with THEIR vote…

Slart, most of our problems begin and end with welfare and social security.

Most of our problems begin and end with the system underlying welfare and social security.

The day the EBT cards no longer work will be a dreadful one for this country. To answer Roddy’s question from another thread, that will be the date of our societal collapse. And it will have been completely preventible.

It’s crystal clear that the federal government cannot discriminate based on race, and it’s also clear that state governments can’t.

And yet they do, with contracts, race-based affirmative action,etc.

I’m a libertarian on these matters. For good or ill Augusta finally accepted two women. But it wasn’t government mandating that they should. In theory, If you run a racist small hotel (bracketing for the moment that such things are generally licensed and have to meet certain requirements), you will wind up in the end catering to racists, as others will rebuke you and take their business elsewhere. Which means you have to hope there are a sufficient number of racists to keep your racist hotel afloat. And you must also be prepared for it to be known as a racist hotel — and the social pressures and scorn,etc, that come from such things.

The point being, we don’t need the government to step in and try a one-size-fits-all solution to supposed discrimination. Because then it winds up punishing what merely looks like discrimination as discrimination, when what it is is personal preference on private property.

Login/Register

Advertisements

DHgate.com is the leading B2B online trading marketplace for china wholesale products, you can buy high quality china wholesale apparel, electronics, security cameras and other wholesale products on DHgate.com.